There’s little that Donald Trump has cherished more in his second term than tariffs, a symbol of his imperious approach to the presidency. He has raised and lowered them at will, rewriting the rules of global commerce and daring anyone to stop him.
Now that may be over, the victim of a stunning rebuke from the Supreme Court on Friday. After more than a year of expanding his power, Trump had run into a rare limit.
It was a loss that Trump couldn’t quite accept, and the president claimed he would use other laws to impose alternative tariffs. He even said that the end of this particular legal battle would bring “great certainty” to the economy.
But if anything, Friday opened a new chapter in Trump’s ongoing tariffs drama and raised urgent questions about his ability to make good on his promises of an economic revival. The ruling will most likely prolong chaos over international trade through the midterm elections, with much unknown about Trump’s next steps and whether roughly $175 billion in import taxes that the Supreme Court struck down will be refunded.
The president chose, as he often does, to scorn the patriotism of those who disagree with him.
He said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,” adding that he was “absolutely ashamed” of the six Supreme Court justices who ruled against him “for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
Trump described the justices as “fools and lapdogs” who are “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
The president said he plans to sign an executive order enabling him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The government would begin national security investigations in order to charge new tariffs on specific products as well. The 10% tariffs are legally capped at 150 days, but Trump brushed off a question about the limit by saying “we have a right to do pretty much what we want to do.”
All of that means Trump’s tariff timelines are likely to collide with the midterm elections for control of the House and Senate.
TARIFFS HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR
Trump learned of the Supreme Court’s decision during a private meeting with governors in the morning when he was handed a note, according to two people with knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They said he called it “a disgrace.”
Another person, who was briefed on the conversation, disclosed that Trump said he has “to do something about these courts.”
The meeting with the governors ended shortly thereafter.
Looming over Trump’s legal debacle has been voters’ frustration with the tariffs, which have been linked to higher prices and a slowdown in hiring.
The president has consistently misrepresented his tariffs, claiming despite evidence to the contrary that foreign governments would pay them and that the revenues would be sufficient to pay down the national debt and give taxpayers a dividend check.
After Trump announced worldwide tariffs last April, an AP-NORC poll found that 76% of Americans said the policies would increase the cost of consumer goods — a worrisome sign for a president elected on the promise of addressing years of inflation.
Another poll, conducted in January, said about 6 in 10 Americans said Trump had gone too far in imposing new tariffs on other countries.
TRUMP USED TARIFFS TO RESHAPE REPUBLICAN TRADE AGENDA
Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs had left many Republican lawmakers uneasy, publicly and privately, forcing them to defend what were essentially tax increases on the American public and businesses.
At various points during Trump’s second term, at least seven senators from the president’s party have voiced their concerns. Earlier this month, six House Republicans joined with Democrats to vote for a resolution against Trump’s tariffs on Canada.
Indeed, free trade had long been a central plank of the Republican Party before Trump’s rise to power.
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell described Trump’s assertion that he can bypass Congress to implement tariffs as “illegal” in a statement praising the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid,” the former top Senate Republican said. “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1” of the Constitution.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served during Trump’s first term, cheered the ruling.
“American families and American businesses pay American tariffs — not foreign countries,” Pence wrote on social media. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”
Democrats were quick to seize on the Supreme Court ruling to say Trump broke the law and middle-class families suffered as a result.
Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said Trump “is not a king” and his “tariffs were always illegal.”
“Republicans in Congress could have easily ended this economic crisis by standing up for their communities,” said DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead, they chose to bend the knee to Trump while families, small businesses and farmers suffered from higher prices.”
TARIFFS WERE CENTRAL TO TRUMP’S ECONOMIC PITCH
Trump has claimed that his tariffs were the difference between national prosperity and deep poverty, a pitch he made Thursday to voters in the swing state of Georgia.
The president used the word “tariff” 28 times in his speech at a Georgia steel company, Coosa Steel, which credited the import taxes as making its products more competitive with goods from China.
“Without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now,” Trump insisted.
Trump also complained that he had to justify his use of tariffs to the Supreme Court.
“I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president,” he said. “I have the right to put tariffs on for national security purposes, countries that have been ripping us off for years.”
By a 6-3 vote, the high court said no.
